We can't manage to go one week without some brain-dead politician in Washington playing the race card. This week's example comes from Virginia Democrat Jim Moran. Now you may remember that name but can't remember exactly why. The last time I talked about this rocket surgeon he had this to say ..
"... because we have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards means of redistributing wealth."
Remember that little goodie? Yeah, I had some fun with that. But this time around, Moran resorts to none other than the race card. He says that Republicans made big gains in November in part because "a lot of people in this country ... don't want to be governed by an African-American."
There we go with this hyphenated Americanism thing. But let's keep going. He goes on to say that Americans object to Obama even more because he a is a black president "who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society -- that's a basic philosophical clash."
Playing the race card has been the last refuge of Democrats for two generations now. When the news goes against them, when the rhetoric goes against them, when the votes go against them, they start screaming race.
What Jim Moran can't seem to explain is why all these racist voted for Barack Obama in 2008? If they didn't want to be governed by an African-American, as he says it, why did they vote for him in the first place. Did the people of this country suddenly wake up on January 21, 2009 to discover to their horror that there was a black man living in the White House? Hardly.
But why am I wasting so much time trying to respond to an idiot who believes that the idea that people are entitled to the wealth that they produce is "simplistic"?
If this man didn't have a vote in the House of Representatives he wouldn't be worth the breath that it takes to utter his name.
And as for this "race" thing, let me be clear (pun intended), I don't like the white half either.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
SOTU
Because the State of the Union aired Tuesday night and I was unavailable to comment, I feel compelled to talk about it, if only because I noticed an odd evolution in our leader's voice.
He's transformed himself from a Commander in Chief, to a fretful parent trying to get you to finish those remaining peas on the plate.
As his voice strained higher - it reminded me of my favorite episode of the Brady Bunch, when Greg urged his family members to put on a show, to help pay for a gift for dad and mom's anniversary. I kept thinking Obama was gunna suggest we break up into small groups, and come up with collages that best express our drive to do better.
Now, this "come on, everyone! Let's put on a play!" may work well in a tree house, where you can fashion old blankets into stage curtains...but in front of the country - it's weird.
Maybe because I think he was trying to convince himself, not just us - that America was great.
Or perhaps he felt he had to prove to us that he really felt that way, even if he didn't.
Or maybe even he was simply exhausted - after years of banging on America's faults - and now it was time to come home and sleep in his own bed.
In the end, the speech wasn't bad. It wasn't good. It was a fiery "Eh."
I think he should have kept it fast and simple, like "America rules, now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go to work. And Black Swan was overrated."
To me, confidence isn't built by sixty minutes of earnestness, but by relaxed optimism - made acceptable by an innate trust that you know what's really important in troubled times.
I'm not sure it's solar shingles, or anything to do with Sputnik.
So let me sum up PrezBo's entire speech with this paraphrase--America is a great nation and as Americans we can achieve anything and everything if we really, really want to. And OH--Look -- I found a shiny new quarter.
He's transformed himself from a Commander in Chief, to a fretful parent trying to get you to finish those remaining peas on the plate.
As his voice strained higher - it reminded me of my favorite episode of the Brady Bunch, when Greg urged his family members to put on a show, to help pay for a gift for dad and mom's anniversary. I kept thinking Obama was gunna suggest we break up into small groups, and come up with collages that best express our drive to do better.
Now, this "come on, everyone! Let's put on a play!" may work well in a tree house, where you can fashion old blankets into stage curtains...but in front of the country - it's weird.
Maybe because I think he was trying to convince himself, not just us - that America was great.
Or perhaps he felt he had to prove to us that he really felt that way, even if he didn't.
Or maybe even he was simply exhausted - after years of banging on America's faults - and now it was time to come home and sleep in his own bed.
In the end, the speech wasn't bad. It wasn't good. It was a fiery "Eh."
I think he should have kept it fast and simple, like "America rules, now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go to work. And Black Swan was overrated."
To me, confidence isn't built by sixty minutes of earnestness, but by relaxed optimism - made acceptable by an innate trust that you know what's really important in troubled times.
I'm not sure it's solar shingles, or anything to do with Sputnik.
So let me sum up PrezBo's entire speech with this paraphrase--America is a great nation and as Americans we can achieve anything and everything if we really, really want to. And OH--Look -- I found a shiny new quarter.
We be getting closer to the CLIFF
It's no coincidence that the day after PrezBo speech on Tuesday night, we get new astonishing figures from the Congressional Budget Office. Those figures are that the government's deficit spending will reach $1.5 trillion this year. That is money that we don't have ... money that we have to borrow ... and it is money that your grandchildren will have to pay back ... if we're still around to even pay it back. Remember folks .. that budget is JUST FOR THIS YEAR! The huge sum is blamed on the slow economy (duh) and the extension of the Bush tax cuts (here we go). If you put pen to paper you will see that blaming the tax cuts is absolute nonsense. There's scary news about there about the deficit ... and ObamaBots see a way to use that scary news to advance their class warfare wealth redistribution agenda.
Think about it this way: Our government will have to borrow 40 cents for every dollar it spends in this fiscal year. The deficit will absolutely be the highest on record, although at the rate we are going, I'm sure that record will continue to be broken, and that is nothing to be proud of. In fact, the CBO currently estimates that the deficit will remain above $1 trillion in 2012 - for the fourth year in a row. Our debt held by the public will soar to 70% by the end of the 2011 fiscal year.
It's hard to comprehend all of this, isn't it? But with figures as staggering as these, Obama's plans to merely freeze spending are looking diminutive. (That's tiny for those of you who were educated in public schools.)
Now before we move on to my next intemperate rant ... this must be said. The ultimate blame for what is looking like the eventual economic destruction of our country rests with us, not these politicians. America is a country chock full of people who think that the federal government exists for no real purpose other than to solve every problem they ever have. If they abuse their health, the government is supposed to pay to make them well again. If they fail to save for retirement, the government is supposed to step in with a guaranteed lifetime retirement income. If they spend like teenage girls in a mall, and can't pay their home mortgage, then the government is supposed to step in and bail them out and provide a place for them to live. It's always the government. Space the government is always there to solve your problems. Space and the government should always take money away from other people, who have lived their lives responsibly, to pay for the solutions. This country can be saved. But as long as we have a sizable portion of our population, the moocher class, begging for more and more benefits from the government, and voting accordingly, our future looks dim.
In 1821 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Nathaniel Macon. They actually wrote letters back then. How about an excerpt?
"There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad ..."
But what the hell did Thomas Jefferson know? A lot, apparently. Here is another Jefferson quote:
"I placed the economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts we must be taxed in our meat and drink in our necessities and in our comforts in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."
Now those are two quotes from one of the men responsible for this incredible nation, though Obama doesn't seem to think it's all that incredible. But it actually goes back further than that. Knowledge of the dangers of public debt were known even in 55 BC! Here is a quote from Cicero. No, Cicero wasn't a rapper. He was some Roman dude. A philosopher, actually, who's full name was Marcus Tullius Cicero. Come to think of it, that is sort of a rapper name. Anyway ... the quote:
"The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of official government should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
Now think about it my friends; that was 55 BC! If you take the word "Rome" out of that quote it sounds for all the world like it was uttered by a Libertarian or Republican candidate somewhere. It certainly doesn't sound like it could have ever been uttered by Barack Obama except, possibly, in one of his bad dreams.
We have to stop whistling past the graveyard folks. Sometimes when you whistle past too many graveyards you end up being buried in one of them.
Think about it this way: Our government will have to borrow 40 cents for every dollar it spends in this fiscal year. The deficit will absolutely be the highest on record, although at the rate we are going, I'm sure that record will continue to be broken, and that is nothing to be proud of. In fact, the CBO currently estimates that the deficit will remain above $1 trillion in 2012 - for the fourth year in a row. Our debt held by the public will soar to 70% by the end of the 2011 fiscal year.
It's hard to comprehend all of this, isn't it? But with figures as staggering as these, Obama's plans to merely freeze spending are looking diminutive. (That's tiny for those of you who were educated in public schools.)
Now before we move on to my next intemperate rant ... this must be said. The ultimate blame for what is looking like the eventual economic destruction of our country rests with us, not these politicians. America is a country chock full of people who think that the federal government exists for no real purpose other than to solve every problem they ever have. If they abuse their health, the government is supposed to pay to make them well again. If they fail to save for retirement, the government is supposed to step in with a guaranteed lifetime retirement income. If they spend like teenage girls in a mall, and can't pay their home mortgage, then the government is supposed to step in and bail them out and provide a place for them to live. It's always the government. Space the government is always there to solve your problems. Space and the government should always take money away from other people, who have lived their lives responsibly, to pay for the solutions. This country can be saved. But as long as we have a sizable portion of our population, the moocher class, begging for more and more benefits from the government, and voting accordingly, our future looks dim.
In 1821 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Nathaniel Macon. They actually wrote letters back then. How about an excerpt?
"There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad ..."
But what the hell did Thomas Jefferson know? A lot, apparently. Here is another Jefferson quote:
"I placed the economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts we must be taxed in our meat and drink in our necessities and in our comforts in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."
Now those are two quotes from one of the men responsible for this incredible nation, though Obama doesn't seem to think it's all that incredible. But it actually goes back further than that. Knowledge of the dangers of public debt were known even in 55 BC! Here is a quote from Cicero. No, Cicero wasn't a rapper. He was some Roman dude. A philosopher, actually, who's full name was Marcus Tullius Cicero. Come to think of it, that is sort of a rapper name. Anyway ... the quote:
"The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of official government should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
Now think about it my friends; that was 55 BC! If you take the word "Rome" out of that quote it sounds for all the world like it was uttered by a Libertarian or Republican candidate somewhere. It certainly doesn't sound like it could have ever been uttered by Barack Obama except, possibly, in one of his bad dreams.
We have to stop whistling past the graveyard folks. Sometimes when you whistle past too many graveyards you end up being buried in one of them.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Never let a tragedy go to waste
By now, there's little I can say that would shed light or comfort on the ghastly events that took place last Saturday. As an average joe with a penchant for thinking the obvious, two words came to mind, regarding the shooter: "grudge," and "crazy." Nothing good comes from an equation in which those two variables are involved. And while these events are rare, it doesn't make them any less horrific.
So let me focus instead on the media's coverage, particularly the nonsense on the web, which seemed a stark contrast from the actual facts, as they unfolded. After all, it's the facts that matter, not the opinions of an editorialist with an axe to grind. What bothered me most – the drooling opinionating that sprinted from the gate, faster than the facts could keep up.
And this rush to judgment reveals the media's not-so-secret biases toward certain political personalities and movements. Among a few prominent leftist columnists, celebrities and talking heads, their responses barely concealed a morbid glee in getting their assumptions met - using incendiary rhetoric that they themselves pretend to condemn. The shooting was the best thing that ever happened to their own reservoir of anger. It was a leftwing Lalapalooza.
Actually, it was like watching an opening at Walmart, with sweaty hacks in a tug of war over a table of identical, knee jerk assumptions. All designed to control the narrative. To get there first, to fill a void. It was the world's worst cocktail party, without the cocktails - featuring Jane Fonda, KooKoo Krugman, Piers Morgan, the puppets at Daily Kos and Media Matters – and even WaPo columnist Courtland Milloy, who wanted "to spit on" the tea party, now blaming the right for the shootings. Capping it off, we have a Democrat who wants to ban symbols that may seem threatening to elected officials. I believe that's symptom one in the diagnosis, "God, You're Stupid."
It even reached the other side of the pond, as Morgan, the ruddy replacement for Larry King, leapt into the fray, with a tweet....
"This now deleted image from Sarah Palin website will be reason this terrible shooting has huge political ramifications."
This, from a man who ran- on the cover of his old newspaper- a faked image featuring a British soldier urinating on a prisoner. What "political ramifications" did that have for the British military? Thankfully, not much, compared to Piers - who was fired.
And so, on Saturday, Twitter was a feeding frenzy of amnesiacs, galloping to one singular conclusion, forgetting that doing so with the FT Hood shooter was mindless bigotry.
As a rightie, I wanted to go after the ghouls capitalizing on this tragedy to score political points. But you realize, as Congressman McCotter once said, quoting someone famous: wrestling with a skunk only leaves you smelly and the skunk happy.
There were a lot of skunks out there this weekend, and boy did they stink.
So let me focus instead on the media's coverage, particularly the nonsense on the web, which seemed a stark contrast from the actual facts, as they unfolded. After all, it's the facts that matter, not the opinions of an editorialist with an axe to grind. What bothered me most – the drooling opinionating that sprinted from the gate, faster than the facts could keep up.
And this rush to judgment reveals the media's not-so-secret biases toward certain political personalities and movements. Among a few prominent leftist columnists, celebrities and talking heads, their responses barely concealed a morbid glee in getting their assumptions met - using incendiary rhetoric that they themselves pretend to condemn. The shooting was the best thing that ever happened to their own reservoir of anger. It was a leftwing Lalapalooza.
Actually, it was like watching an opening at Walmart, with sweaty hacks in a tug of war over a table of identical, knee jerk assumptions. All designed to control the narrative. To get there first, to fill a void. It was the world's worst cocktail party, without the cocktails - featuring Jane Fonda, KooKoo Krugman, Piers Morgan, the puppets at Daily Kos and Media Matters – and even WaPo columnist Courtland Milloy, who wanted "to spit on" the tea party, now blaming the right for the shootings. Capping it off, we have a Democrat who wants to ban symbols that may seem threatening to elected officials. I believe that's symptom one in the diagnosis, "God, You're Stupid."
It even reached the other side of the pond, as Morgan, the ruddy replacement for Larry King, leapt into the fray, with a tweet....
"This now deleted image from Sarah Palin website will be reason this terrible shooting has huge political ramifications."
This, from a man who ran- on the cover of his old newspaper- a faked image featuring a British soldier urinating on a prisoner. What "political ramifications" did that have for the British military? Thankfully, not much, compared to Piers - who was fired.
And so, on Saturday, Twitter was a feeding frenzy of amnesiacs, galloping to one singular conclusion, forgetting that doing so with the FT Hood shooter was mindless bigotry.
As a rightie, I wanted to go after the ghouls capitalizing on this tragedy to score political points. But you realize, as Congressman McCotter once said, quoting someone famous: wrestling with a skunk only leaves you smelly and the skunk happy.
There were a lot of skunks out there this weekend, and boy did they stink.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Fraud
So, the most famous and oft-quoted study linking vaccines to autism has been deemed a fraud. A new examination found that the paper, authored by Andrew Wakefield over 12 years ago, contained heavily doctored research to make the link appear real.
This is kind of a huge deal, since the paper was used by witless fools like Jennie McCarthy to scare parents into skipping vaccinations - which allowed childhood diseases to spike, and kill kids.
When Jennie was asked to comment on the fraudulent study, she said, "Really? I guess that makes me a stupid, untalented asshat."
Well, not really.
I didn't bother to contact McCarthy, mainly because I am lazy and it would be pointless. Because for self-involved attention-seeking celebrities like her, they don't let real medical research get in the way of making themselves feel good about themselves.
And that's all this autism-vaccine scare was: an exercise in self-importance for mindless cretins like McCarthy, her ex Jim Carrey, and the assorted chucklebutts at the Huffington Post. The superior feeling they get from telling the medical establishment they're evil more than outweighs the harm they unleashed on the public.
Let this be a lesson for everyone: anytime a celebrity comes out with an opinion on anything regarding health, medicine, the environment, cats, water polo, designer headwear, croutons - simply assume the opposite is true. And as punishment for the crimes committed, I believe we should boycott all of Jenny McCarthy's projects.
As soon as, you know, she has one.
This is kind of a huge deal, since the paper was used by witless fools like Jennie McCarthy to scare parents into skipping vaccinations - which allowed childhood diseases to spike, and kill kids.
When Jennie was asked to comment on the fraudulent study, she said, "Really? I guess that makes me a stupid, untalented asshat."
Well, not really.
I didn't bother to contact McCarthy, mainly because I am lazy and it would be pointless. Because for self-involved attention-seeking celebrities like her, they don't let real medical research get in the way of making themselves feel good about themselves.
And that's all this autism-vaccine scare was: an exercise in self-importance for mindless cretins like McCarthy, her ex Jim Carrey, and the assorted chucklebutts at the Huffington Post. The superior feeling they get from telling the medical establishment they're evil more than outweighs the harm they unleashed on the public.
Let this be a lesson for everyone: anytime a celebrity comes out with an opinion on anything regarding health, medicine, the environment, cats, water polo, designer headwear, croutons - simply assume the opposite is true. And as punishment for the crimes committed, I believe we should boycott all of Jenny McCarthy's projects.
As soon as, you know, she has one.
Choose NOW!
So on David Horowitz's great Newsreal blog, they pose the question: should gays be allowed in the conservative movement? The person who took the "no" side is a chap named Ryan.
Ryan believes that, homosexuality is a "sometime behavior," and he quotes a gay he agrees with, cut and pasting: "...human sexuality is fluid and flexible...The concept of gay and lesbian identity may be nothing but a social construct."
So I guess he believes the same: that sexuality is "flexible," and we choose our orientation.
Which makes me wonder, when did he first choose to be straight?
And did he choose to be straight, only because it's acceptable by conservatives?
I mean, it's got to be tough to think that, at any "fluid" or "flexible" moment, you can go the other way. The bad way. It must require constant vigilance to stick to ones heterosexual guns, and maintain a safe distance from hairless bodybuilders and tanning salons.
I don't know. For me, I'm certain I was born straight, so i don't know anything else. And I don't think too much about it.
So I assume it's the same for everyone.
But maybe life would be easier for millions if it was a choice. Then gays could all be straight, and wouldn't have to deal with people like Ryan.
Lastly, if you want to argue against homosexuality, you need to move it beyond religion. Fact is, if I get mugged, I can explain to the police why the mugger must be arrested - without saying "it's in the Ten Commandments."
After all, pointing to God as the basis for your distaste is what our enemies do every time they try to blow us up. We're better than that.
Ryan believes that, homosexuality is a "sometime behavior," and he quotes a gay he agrees with, cut and pasting: "...human sexuality is fluid and flexible...The concept of gay and lesbian identity may be nothing but a social construct."
So I guess he believes the same: that sexuality is "flexible," and we choose our orientation.
Which makes me wonder, when did he first choose to be straight?
And did he choose to be straight, only because it's acceptable by conservatives?
I mean, it's got to be tough to think that, at any "fluid" or "flexible" moment, you can go the other way. The bad way. It must require constant vigilance to stick to ones heterosexual guns, and maintain a safe distance from hairless bodybuilders and tanning salons.
I don't know. For me, I'm certain I was born straight, so i don't know anything else. And I don't think too much about it.
So I assume it's the same for everyone.
But maybe life would be easier for millions if it was a choice. Then gays could all be straight, and wouldn't have to deal with people like Ryan.
Lastly, if you want to argue against homosexuality, you need to move it beyond religion. Fact is, if I get mugged, I can explain to the police why the mugger must be arrested - without saying "it's in the Ten Commandments."
After all, pointing to God as the basis for your distaste is what our enemies do every time they try to blow us up. We're better than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)